Politics & Stuff

[iseah100 5,612]

Ferguson, Missouri.

http://wapo.st/1sXk4Sj

The Civil Rights Act is 50 years old. These two pictures were taken 50 years apart. Behold our progress.

Mam throwing tear back at Police.

American journalists arrested in McDonald’s while covering protests against killing of unarmed teen: http://cnn.it/1uvjZHz

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/A00685n

Wtf.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

Its funny you say that. It never seemed right, the soldier looking down the sight, to shoot something a few feet away. Fake is it ?

Nope. It's very real and there is zero historical doubt about that whatsoever (in fact, the picture is taken from a Nazi report from Stroop to Himmler-have a look at the pictures here.-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stroop_Report#Photographs_from_the_Stroop_Report

I have never even heard anyone pretend it's fake because it's so well historically documented. This is some disgusting shit which shows the exact opposite of what you are trying to prove. How propaganda spread by racists on the internet turns into conspiracy theories which people believe despite the complete absence of any proof, Also, the photo in Ukraine above shows a soldier shooting a bunch of Jewish civilians. Making the photo bigger does nothing at all just changes the composition of the photo. The Jews in front were murdered and now the soldier is about to shoot the mother and child. How does that change the context at all? Trying to pretend there is some lie here is fucking disgusting.

[Fulham Broadway 16,386]

Nope. It's very real and there is zero historical doubt about that whatsoever (in fact, the picture is taken from a Nazi report from Stroop to Himmler-have a look at the pictures here.-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stroop_Report#Photographs_from_the_Stroop_Report

I have never even heard anyone pretend it's fake because it's so well historically documented. This is some disgusting shit which shows the exact opposite of what you are trying to prove. How propaganda spread by racists on the internet turns into conspiracy theories which people believe despite the complete absence of any proof, Also, the photo in Ukraine above shows a soldier shooting a bunch of Jewish civilians. Making the photo bigger does nothing at all just changes the composition of the photo. The Jews in front were murdered and now the soldier is about to shoot the mother and child. How does that change the context at all? Trying to pretend there is some lie here is fucking disgusting.

Now I dont know what to believe. Stingray said its a renowned fake.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

Now I dont know what to believe. Stingray said its a renowned fake.

Stingray is an idiot who has no idea what he's talking about at all and just collects little bits from websites he likes and tries to pretend that out of context quotes and conspiracy theories make you an expert in a field. (A problem of the internet. Lots of access to information is great but lots of access to misinformation is bad.) I am an actual historian who studied history in a top university. Anyway, it doesn't matter, you don't have to be a historian, just google Stroop report and you will see any single historically reliable source will have it as real and lots of details.

Here it is in the Auschwitz website-

http://www.auschwitz.dk/Stroop.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stroop_Report

Look at a the references at the bottom. Now, try to find a single legit source that questions the authenticity. I looked up the fake claims because I couldn't imagine they existed (although racism knows no ends) The people who claim it is a fake, are the Stormfront crowd (KKK)

[Fulham Broadway 16,386]

Stingray is an idiot who has no idea what he's talking about at all and just collects little bits from websites he likes and tries to pretend that out of context quotes and conspiracy theories make you an expert in a field. (A problem of the internet. Lots of access to information is great but lots of access to misinformation is bad.) I am an actual historian who studied history in a top university. Anyway, it doesn't matter, you don't have to be a historian, just google Stroop report and you will see any single historically reliable source will have it as real and lots of details.

Here it is in the Auschwitz website-

http://www.auschwitz.dk/Stroop.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stroop_Report

Look at a the references at the bottom. Now, try to find a single legit source that questions the authenticity. I looked up the fake claims because I couldn't imagine they existed (although racism knows no ends) The people who claim it is a fake, are the Stormfront crowd (KKK)

Stormfront are neo nazi fuckwits. Mind yiu that auschwitz site you post a link for is hardly a bastion of academic research is it ? Any site that has pop ups about making "easy money" is dodgy in terms of historical reference, especially when the subject is Auschwitz.

OK. Well lets not get personal towards Stingray, and stick to the facts. Pretty sure he said his folks were in the camps, so I doubt vety much hes racist

[Stingray 9,441]

Stingray is an idiot who has no idea what he's talking about at all and just collects little bits from websites he likes and tries to pretend that out of context quotes and conspiracy theories make you an expert in a field. (A problem of the internet. Lots of access to information is great but lots of access to misinformation is bad.) I am an actual historian who studied history in a top university. Anyway, it doesn't matter, you don't have to be a historian, just google Stroop report and you will see any single historically reliable source will have it as real and lots of details.

Here it is in the Auschwitz website-

http://www.auschwitz.dk/Stroop.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stroop_Report

Look at a the references at the bottom. Now, try to find a single legit source that questions the authenticity. I looked up the fake claims because I couldn't imagine they existed (although racism knows no ends) The people who claim it is a fake, are the Stormfront crowd (KKK)

Excuse me .... This info comes from belgian historian on the holocaust prof. Gie Vandenberghe. It is a pic taken completely out of context. It has appeared in a book 'The exploitation of the Holocaust'. The Central thesis was that the manipulation of these stills actually gave holocaust deniers weapons. Completely unnecessary considering the reality of the Shoah is bad enough without manipulating material.

Also fuck you for calling me an idiot. Ill send you my phd.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

Excuse me .... This info comes from belgian foremost historian on the holocaust prof. Gie Vandenbergh. It is a pic taken completely out of context. It has appeltje in a book 'The exploitation of the Holocaust'.

Also fuck you for calling me an idiot. Ill send you my phd.

lol.Maybe you have a PHD but you are still an idiot or maybe just completely dishonest. Gie Van den Berghe is a very minor writer and I have never heard of him (nor is his Wiki page translated into any language) in the world of Holocaust studies, he is an ant. This is exactly what is wrong with people like you pretending to be historians. There are literally thousands of holocaust historians and what percentage believes that these photographs are not legit? 1 out of thousands? 2? Why would you believe a tiny minority of thinkers unless you wanted to. It's because people like you aren't interested in the truth, you are interested in justifying your worldview so you find one minor writer who backs you up and then pretend like it's the truth. You're like a climate change denier-instead of believing the 97%+ of scientists, finding the handful that agree with what you already believe. And anyway, if he's even a historian, show me the passage where he calls the Stroop Report fake because if he says that like you said he's not even a minor historian, he's a flat-out liar. ((you said "well known fake" which is even a bigger lie,)

[Stingray 9,441]

lol.Maybe you have a PHD but you are still an idiot or maybe just completely dishonest. Gie Van den Berghe is a very minor writer and I have never heard of him (nor is his Wiki page translated into any language) in the world of Holocaust studies, he is an ant. This is exactly what is wrong with people like you pretending to be historians. There are literally thousands of holocaust historians and what percentage believes that these photographs are not legit? 1 out of thousands? 2? Why would you believe a tiny minority of thinkers unless you wanted to. It's because people like you aren't interested in the truth, you are interested in justifying your worldview so you find one minor writer who backs you up and then pretend like it's the truth. You're like a climate change denier-instead of believing the 97%+ of scientists, finding the handful that agree with what you already believe. And anyway, if he's even a historian, show me the passage where he calls the Stroop Report fake because if he says that like you said he's not even a minor historian, he's a flat-out liar. ((you said "well known fake" which is even a bigger lie,)

Again the insults. Second time. Reread my argument. I said nothing about the Stroop report. I meant those pics are taking out of context and were manipulated/cropped to change their meaning. Nothing more.

So get off of your high horse and lose the superior tone. Also, nice going on the authority argument. I guess thats how you do your 'science'.

[Rmpr 8,977]

Hey guys, please try to discuss your opinions without insulting other member's point of view. This is for everyone!

Thanks,

Rmpr

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

Again the insults. Second time. Reread my argument. I said nothing about the Stroop report. I said those pics are taking out of context and were manipulated/cropped to change their meaning. Nothing more.

So get off of your high horse and lose the superior tone.

"It is a fake, a very famous one ...... "

That's what you said. That is not even close to, "those pics were taken out of context" even though that is also a lie or at least an exaggeration They are pictures of persecution of Jews taken during the Holocaust. That's pretty much bang on the nose context-wise. Every photo, is by definition taken out of context because you can't see the context. It's a still image. Every picture is a half-truth but these photos do convey overall truth and are certainly not faked like you offensively and ridiculously claimed.

[BlueLion. 21,491]

Have I been sent off yet? Not realistic enough if I haven't had at least three red cards already.

[Stingray 9,441]

Ok,, let's think this through. Fake may have been a too strong wording (im not a native speaker), lets bring it to fake use (we call it 'oneigenlijk gebruik' which really doesn't translate in English. fake use would come closest, so i used the word fake). My main source for this is Susan Sontag, 'On Photography', in Silvers, Robert (ed.) The First Anthology. 30 Years of The New York Review of Books, New York, 1993 But then again you make a very similar sin when starting like this:

Stingray is an idiot who has no idea what he's talking about at all and just collects little bits from websites he likes and tries to pretend that out of context quotes and conspiracy theories make you an expert in a field. (A problem of the internet. Lots of access to information is great but lots of access to misinformation is bad.) I am an actual historian who studied history in a top university. Anyway, it doesn't matter, you don't have to be a historian, just google Stroop report and you will see any single historically reliable source will have it as real and lots of details.

Here it is in the Auschwitz website-

http://www.auschwitz.dk/Stroop.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stroop_Report

Look at a the references at the bottom. Now, try to find a single legit source that questions the authenticity. I looked up the fake claims because I couldn't imagine they existed (although racism knows no ends) The people who claim it is a fake, are the Stormfront crowd (KKK)

After my next posts you ditch that argument and you minimize my sources

Gie Van den Berghe is a very minor writer and I have never heard of him (nor is his Wiki page translated into any language) in the world of Holocaust studies, he is an ant. This is exactly what is wrong with people like you pretending to be historians.

Then you ease it up a little more

Every picture is a half-truth but these photos do convey overall truth and are certainly not faked like you offensively and ridiculously claimed.

So don't attack me and call me an idiot who only looks for internet scraps, because that is simply a lie. Anyway, how can you know that. I guess using too strong wording is NOT only my sin, right? Let's take it from the beginning, because just like with Choulo and the end of the Israel debate, where you - again - jumped on the wagon very soon with very firm accusations, I believe you did with mine.

1. The use of your sources yourself: you revert to websites without any acclaim yourself to 'debunk' my thesis. While I at least had an academic (albeit Belgian source) while I recall the same stipulation about the use of 'changed' photo material In Saul Friedländer.

2. My thesis was that those pics are indeed pics of actual events (in Warschau and the other in Ivangorod) but they are changed to better fit a narrative - the narrative that better explained the Holocaust: that every german is a willing killing machine, even for children. You might think I am being moronic again, but alas I am not.

E.g. In the museum for deportation and resistance in Mechelen, here in Belgium that explicitly uses that HALF pic as its main image during the exposition. When asked why by historians, the answer is that the image in close up is much stronger and better represents the german min set at the time (own correspondence of G. Vandenberghe with the museum).

E.G. 2: Even in Goldhagens 'willing executioners' book, the pic is cropped - de facto turning into a individualistic zoom picture focussing on a child being protected by a mother while adding the subscript 'In front of a photographer a German soldier takes aim...'(is it a mother? can you actually tell that?) Goldhagen was criticized on this point but deliberately left it unchanged in other editions. You would not suspect this from a historian. Why did he do this if 'historical correctness' is his main concern? To make sure very one is even more convinced of the atrocities of the holocaust?

Alas, these practices had the opposite effect - and this was my entire point. Holocaust deniers have very willingly used these altered pictures to make a case AGAINST the holocaust. An example:

By the 'oneigenlijke gebruik' of the photo it made people like Faurisson the Holocaust denier it is actually a picture from 1941 and there are polish people on it, not jews. He also adds that the germans are not trying to shoot the people but instead are protecting them. I'll see in advance, before you jump on you high horse, that I resent these tactics. That is exactly why I feel it utterly unnecessary to use these pics in the WRONG way because they look more dramatically/iconic altered, because it gives the holocaust deniers exactly what they need.

The other picture, the boy in Warschau, was also zoomed in. Suddenly you when you unzoom you see it in the context of people being deported away to Treblinka (they even have their backs with them - so they must have believed there was still hope). That iconic crop however had an even funnier effect, people started to recognize that boy and claimed he was still alive - a clear hoax:

Here it was a london business man that thought he was the boy, other more recent examples are Zvi Nussbaum, who also claimed to be the boy even though he never was in the getto. Again the holocaust deniers used this and other photo manipulations to make a case against the number of gassings in Treblinka and thus minimizing the Holocaust.

Why would a deliberate 'dramatization' of an already dramatic and horrible event be needed, especially if you give arguments to those of bad intent....

I could go on and on, but i Will not.

I take very much offense with the fact you do not even TRY to get my point and just start with degrading insults - idiot, racist, ridiculous .... I says a lot about a man's true face. I think have seen yours.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

Ok,, let's think this through. Fake may have been a too strong wording (im not a native speaker), lets bring it to fake use (we call it 'oneigenlijk gebruik' which really doesn't translate in English. fake use would come closest, so i used the word fake). My main source for this is Susan Sontag, 'On Photography', in Silvers, Robert (ed.) The First Anthology. 30 Years of The New York Review of Books, New York, 1993 But then again you make a very similar sin when starting like this:

After my next posts you ditch that argument and you minimize my sources

Then you ease it up a little more

So don't attack me and call me an idiot who only looks for internet scraps, because that is simply a lie. Anyway, how can you know that. I guess using too strong wording is NOT only my sin, right? Let's take it from the beginning, because just like with Choulo and the end of the Israel debate, where you - again - jumped on the wagon very soon with very firm accusations, I believe you did with mine.

1. The use of your sources yourself: you revert to websites without any acclaim yourself to 'debunk' my thesis. While I at least had an academic (albeit Belgian source) while I recall the same stipulation about the use of 'changed' photo material In Saul Friedländer.

2. My thesis was that those pics are indeed pics of actual events (in Warschau and the other in Ivangorod) but they are changed to better fit a narrative - the narrative that better explained the Holocaust: that every german is a willing killing machine, even for children. You might think I am being moronic again, but alas I am not.

E.g. In the museum for deportation and resistance in Mechelen, here in Belgium that explicitly uses that HALF pic as its main image during the exposition. When asked why by historians, the answer is that the image in close up is much stronger and better represents the german min set at the time (own correspondence of G. Vandenberghe with the museum).

E.G. 2: Even in Goldhagens 'willing executioners' book, the pic is cropped - de facto turning into a individualistic zoom picture focussing on a child being protected by a mother while adding the subscript 'In front of a photographer a German soldier takes aim...'(is it a mother? can you actually tell that?) Goldhagen was criticized on this point but deliberately left it unchanged in other editions. You would not suspect this from a historian. Why did he do this if 'historical correctness' is his main concern? To make sure very one is even more convinced of the atrocities of the holocaust?

Alas, these practices had the opposite effect - and this was my entire point. Holocaust deniers have very willingly used these altered pictures to make a case AGAINST the holocaust. An example:

beeldfoto11.jpg

By the 'oneigenlijke gebruik' of the photo it made people like Faurisson the Holocaust denier it is actually a picture from 1941 and there are polish people on it, not jews. He also adds that the germans are not trying to shoot the people but instead are protecting them. I'll see in advance, before you jump on you high horse, that I resent these tactics. That is exactly why I feel it utterly unnecessary to use these pics in the WRONG way because they look more dramatically/iconic altered, because it gives the holocaust deniers exactly what they need.

The other picture, the boy in Warschau, was also zoomed in. Suddenly you when you unzoom you see it in the context of people being deported away to Treblinka (they even have their backs with them - so they must have believed there was still hope). That iconic crop however had an even funnier effect, people started to recognize that boy and claimed he was still alive - a clear hoax:

beeldfoto18.jpg

Here it was a london business man that thought he was the boy, other more recent examples are Zvi Nussbaum, who also claimed to be the boy even though he never was in the getto. Again the holocaust deniers used this and other photo manipulations to make a case against the number of gassings in Treblinka and thus minimizing the Holocaust.

Why would a deliberate 'dramatization' of an already dramatic and horrible event be needed, especially if you give arguments to those of bad intent....

I could go on and on, but i Will not.

I take very much offense with the fact you do not even TRY to get my point and just start with degrading insults - idiot, racist, ridiculous .... I says a lot about a man's true face. I think have seen yours.

You knew exactly what you were saying when you used the word "fake". Your English is fine and if you can words like "acclaim" and "hoax" you know what fake means and "fake" is not even close to what you claim you are trying to say. It's not "strong wording". It's an offensive lie. And why bring up this topic which is ridiculous anyway? The photos are not faked or manipulated. Holocaust deniers don't need cropped photos to pursue their nonsense.. So what if some people claim to be the boy? How does that in any way diminish the impact of the Holocaust? You really think there is someone saying "Someone is claiming to be the boy, so the Holocaust was a lie? How does it do anything? It is very easy, in fact, to confront deniers because the facts are endless but there is no point because if someone denies it, they are not interested in reality or facts or evidence.. Faurrison is not a denier because he lied about a picture, but because he is a bigot. facts don't matter to him at all and a cropped photo makes 0.0% difference to that. Do you think that showing that a photo was cropped has made one single person in the world say "hey, the Holocaust was real? or helped one iota with Holocaust denial? Of course not. So, what's the point? The photographer Eddie Adams said "Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation.". Everyone knows that. Why go back to the Holocaust to try to find these photos which are not manipulated (and then lie and say they were).

I am looking at just a few pages back of your earlier writing about the Middle East on here and I am sorry I missed it. It's hilarious! The 1967 war was caused by Israel cutting off water supplies? Wow. That is amazing. Heard a lot of different explanations (it was, in fact, complicated) but never heard that one either. Which insignificant source did you pull that one from? Look up "The Johnston plan of 1955" (otherwise known as the Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan). There was a deal in place signed by all the parties involved but the Arab League backed out (except Jordan) and planned to divert water from Israel. The OPPOSITE of what you claim. Not the casus belli anyway but that's more complicated and has all sorts of factors like bad soviet intelligence. And you have Benny Morris saying exactly the opposite of what he actually believes about Plan Dalet too! How did you manage to do that? Wow. This is fun. Please tell me you've done the Olmert Hamas quote somewhere too. I can't imagine you could pass that one up. Also, lots of Ilan Pappe please. I am 100% sure you are a huge fan. (And I bet you pretend he is a mainstream historian too) I am sure I could guess the 25 quotes you love best .I know you. I have seen thousands exactly like you all over the internet. Pretending to be a student of history, a curious observer rather than someone who pulls the exact same 25 out of context quotes that you all use in order to justify your pathological obsession with Israel.

[Stingray 9,441]

You knew exactly what you were saying when you used the word "fake". Your English is fine and if you can words like "acclaim" and "hoax" you know what fake means and "fake" is not even close to what you claim you are trying to say. It's not "strong wording". It's an offensive lie. And why bring up this topic which is ridiculous anyway? The photos are not faked or manipulated. Holocaust deniers don't need cropped photos to pursue their nonsense.. So what if some people claim to be the boy? How does that in any way diminish the impact of the Holocaust? You really think there is someone saying "Someone is claiming to be the boy, so the Holocaust was a lie? How does it do anything? It is very easy, in fact, to confront deniers because the facts are endless but there is no point because if someone denies it, they are not interested in reality or facts or evidence.. Faurrison is not a denier because he lied about a picture, but because he is a bigot. facts don't matter to him at all and a cropped photo makes 0.0% difference to that. Do you think that showing that a photo was cropped has made one single person in the world say "hey, the Holocaust was real? or helped one iota with Holocaust denial? Of course not. So, what's the point? The photographer Eddie Adams said "Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation.". Everyone knows that. Why go back to the Holocaust to try to find these photos which are not manipulated (and then lie and say they were).

I am looking at just a few pages back of your earlier writing about the Middle East on here and I am sorry I missed it. It's hilarious! The 1967 war was caused by Israel cutting off water supplies? Wow. That is amazing. Heard a lot of different explanations (it was, in fact, complicated) but never heard that one either. Which insignificant source did you pull that one from? Look up "The Johnston plan of 1955" (otherwise known as the Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan). There was a deal in place signed by all the parties involved but the Arab League backed out (except Jordan) and planned to divert water from Israel. The OPPOSITE of what you claim. Not the casus belli anyway but that's more complicated and has all sorts of factors like bad soviet intelligence. And you have Benny Morris saying exactly the opposite of what he actually believes about Plan Dalet too! How did you manage to do that? Wow. This is fun. Please tell me you've done the Olmert Hamas quote somewhere too. I can't imagine you could pass that one up. Also, lots of Ilan Pappe please. I am 100% sure you are a huge fan. (And I bet you pretend he is a mainstream historian too) I am sure I could guess the 25 quotes you love best .I know you. I have seen thousands exactly like you all over the internet. Pretending to be a student of history, a curious observer rather than someone who pulls the exact same 25 out of context quotes that you all use in order to justify your pathological obsession with Israel.

Lol. Feel free to block me then, mister big shot. I don't care tbh. I never pretend to be a historian. I do care about humanitarian crises though. I see a lot of insulting from you, but rarely a good source. That says enough...

Bye bye you rude asshole.

[Kieran. 6,317]

Nvm

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

Lol. Feel free to block me then, mister big shot. I don't care tbh. I never pretend to be a historian. I do care about humanitarian crises though. I see a lot of insulting from you, but ratelt a good source. That says enough...

Sources are needed to back up controversial ideas, exceptional claims, or when you want to quote directly from a source-NOT when discussing general common knowledge or widely accepted truths. For example "Churchill was the Prime Minister of Britain" needs no source but "Churchill was angry at Edward for abdicating" needs a source because he was not publicly angry (or if you wanted to quote one his recently declassified letters on the subject). Why should I, for example, source the Johnson Report? It is out in the open, a mater of historical record. It is up to you to source credible sources to disprove it which you can't because there are none because you are just pulling information that suits your worldview from the internet rather than looking for historical accuracy. But even quotes and sources aren't enough if they are 1) out of context or misrepresenting the source;s actual beliefs 2) in the extreme minority 3) Not of sufficient historical quality or believably . Otherwise, you can pick and choose quotes to make any argument as so many do Anyway, if you are actually interested, just go to Wikipedia and look up their sources (because they actually do source things there).

[hjperdeath 2,226]

As soon as Erdogan won his presidential elections, he ordered to start transporting injured individuals from Gaza to hospitals in Turkey.

What a man. If Israel were so worried about civilians, they would have done this long ago.

[Kieran. 6,317]

What's happening in Ferguson continues to prove the racism in this "post-racial" society where people go through hurdles to avoid talking about race. Aka the Trayvon Martin murder.